Anything Forums

It might be my bad memory (brain type, not ram:P) but I think I heard people say win2k is bad for hardware compatibility, and overall handling of hardware.

Well I must proove them wrong. I've never had an issue with hardwarenot being compatible, only old stuff such as our scanner. But for new hardware, not a problem.

Today, I decided to swap mobos with the server, since the server one will handle my 2700+ while the one I had did not handle it (it had to be overclocked to run at the stock speed of the cpu, as it only reconized it as a 2100+)

So I was weary about linux but after asking people I was told linux was good for that, and it was. Linux is probably the king of hardware compatibility - you don't even need drivers since it automaticly detects most standard things, and it did. (have a display problem though but that's another issue)

But with windows I figured it would BSOD and I'd have to do a repair, or clean install.

Nope, it booted no problem, detected everything, I installed the drivers, and boom, I was up and running within 15 minutes (all those reboots are long lol)

I highly doubt windows xp would of handled it that way, it would probably BSOD, or tell you that you can't install it on another computer and would need to re-activate and go through all that hassle.

Mind you, both mobos were asus boards, and one was sort of the same model but higher. But still I'm pretty impressed that it went so smooth. My temps seem a bit higher now but I think it's because the cpu is actually working at stock speed now. LOL

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23457

I spoke too soon. I got home today to a bloody slow machine that felt like a 486. There must of been driver conflicts that only took affect later on which caused a serious memory issue or something, also my refresh rate had gone mad and i could not change it (display properties would freeze).

So... I did a clean install.

But still, I'm sure XP would of got hit much worse with this. BSOD for sure.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23468

Win2K is much better than WinXP. That's why Microsoft is trying to kill Windows 2000.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23485

Yeah notice how XP gets all the attention. I mean win2k has 4 service packs, and I never saw one single article or news or anything about it, but XP SP2 probably got more attention then doom3 and halo2 combined.

And win2k SP's don't make it crash.


I just hope when they release long horn that they'll also release a new "win2k" like version of windows, sort of like what they did with XP, ME 2K and XP came out almost at the same time but only XP got all the attention. (ME got some too, but only negative LOL)

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23488

Won't happen. Microsoft will continue to Win2K internally (most notably in the XBox), but elsewhere they can't risk the bad PR associated with admitting that an older product is better than your latest and greatest.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23489

Yeah, kind of makes you wonder why they do that. If older is better then just stick with that and make a newer version, but based on it. Well I guess that's sort of what they did with XP but they overdid it by bloating it.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23490

Red Squirrel wrote: Yeah, kind of makes you wonder why they do that. If older is better then just stick with that and make a newer version, but based on it. Well I guess that's sort of what they did with XP but they overdid it by bloating it.

Because screwing up and getting people to buy it anyway keeps in business all of the companies that sell software to fix what Microsoft intentionally screwed up.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23493

FYI, Microsoft has already announced that they aren't going to do a SP 5 for 2000, just an update roll-up thingy:
http://www.anandtech.com/news/shownews.aspx?i=23431

2000 would be my second choice next to 2003, XP isn't shabby just too much gunk.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23494

Yeah hav'ent tried 2003, though it's for servers I hear it's still good as workstation with a few tweaks and disabling of server specific features.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23495

Red Squirrel wrote: I hear it's still good as workstation with a few tweaks and disabling of server specific features.

I think I've mentioned that on this site 5 times now

In benchmarks, it performs faster than XP and 2000

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23497

Yeah you meantioned it allot. I need to actually buy it and install it.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23498

Buy? You can legally try out the trial for 120 days, you know.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23499

Who says 120 days?

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23500

Well, I 'altered' the trial with a pack so I got it for... erm... longer, to say the least

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23501

Of course, those who are smart just dump the lot and go with a decent Linux distro...

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23502

Not everyone can do that though. There's too many windows specific programs I use that won't work in linux, even with emulators etc...

Not to mention that stuff that takes a few seconds in windows takes days to figure out how to do in linux. To me linux is not fit for workstation use yet, they really need to make it easier to use. Especially install/uninstall of programs.

For example, I've been, for 2 days, trying to figure out how to filter mail that has [SPAM] in the subject, to go in a different folder for my new imap server setup. Silly things like that take seconds to do in windows.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23503

wtd wrote: Of course, those who are smart just dump the lot and go with a decent Linux distro...

It also takes someone dumb enough to forget all their windows programs they use daily

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23505

sintekk wrote:

wtd wrote: Of course, those who are smart just dump the lot and go with a decent Linux distro...

It also takes someone dumb enough to forget all their windows programs they use daily

There are very few apps you either can't find perfectly good replacements for, or can't run in emulation. Further, you can dual-boot, running Windows only when absolutely necessary.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23507

Photoshop, Autocad, almost all games, are a few examples.

And don't say gimp since photoshop is much more advanced, and the interface is much more organized and easy/fast to use. Autocad I'm not sure, but I highly doubt there's a replacement that is as good. Not that I use it that often, but do use it. And while some games make a linux version version,not all do.

And emulation does not work all the time.

So for people who are less power users, linux does the job, since there's still lot of apps you can use such as open office and what not, in terms of office use.

But in windows productivity is better for workstation-related tasks. For example, I've been trying to figure out how to make spam go in a different folder on my linux server - for like 2 days. But with a windows mail client, it takes seconds for each account.

So in my opinion linux is better for servers but not workstations, yet.

Just my $0.02(cad). Don't get me wrong I love linux, but I just find it's too complicated for use as workstation now, they need to make things much easier, especially for complete newbies.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23510

Oh, I'll give you that there are some exceptions, like AutoCAD (odd that such an incredibly horrid piece of software could be so dominant)...

I just think that the exceptions apply to very few users. Windows should be the exception, and not the rule.

Also, may I ask which distro you've worked with? I find that sometimes people have a bad experience with one and thus assume all are equally bad.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23511

For what it's worth, setting up filters that can redirect messages to other folders is exceptionally easy. As is setting up new folders.

Evolution also makes it easy to create "virtual folders which can automatically collect messages meeting certain criteria without actually moving the messages around. If you've played with iTunes at all, it's like the concept of a smart playlist.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23512

Not sure about that, procmail is pretty complicated compared to any windows filter. Been trying to figure it out for 2 days. Trying to send mail that has [SPAM] in the title (put there by spamassassin) in each user's "spam" folder on imap accounts. No luck at all. Do you happen to know how this can be done? I've tried stuff like editing the user's /home/username/.procmailrc file but no luck at all.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23513

Don't know if they'll help, but...

http://www.ii.com/internet/robots/procmail/qs/
http://www.musc.edu/ccit/email/imap/advanced.html

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23514

I have Windows 98, ME,2000 and XP.Am running XP now but think I liked 2K better.

Archived topic from Iceteks, old topic ID:2869, old post ID:23972